tv [untitled] July 21, 2011 5:30am-6:00am PDT
>> all those in favor of approving the minutes? any opposed? the minutes or approved as a minute. item three, public comment on executive session. nothing? ok, executive session. is there a motion? >> so moved. >> approved. >> all of those in favor of adjourning to an executive session? any opposed?
>> reconvene in open session. at second? >> i would also like to make game motion that there are two versions of the agenda. on some, item 13 was deleted, which was just adjournment. so i move to add at item 13 back on to the agenda, for adjournment. about a second. >> any public comment? >> all of those in favor of revising the agenda? the motion is carried. is there a motion regarding closed session? >> motion not to disclose? >> is there a second? any discussion? all of those in favor? the motion is carried. >> item six, please be advised that the ringing of and use of
cell phones, pagers, or similar sound producing electronic devices are prohibited at this meeting the chair may order the removal of any person responsible for the ringing or use of a cell phone, pager, or similar sound-producing electronic device. please be advised that a member of the public has up to three minutes to make pertinent public comments on each agenda item unless the port commission adopts a shorter time on any item. item seven a., executive director's report. >> good afternoon. board staff, and a member of the public. i have a brief executive director's report today. i am starting with another of our blue greenway planning and design guidelines workshops, this thursday evening, june 16, at pier 1, from 5:30 until 7:30.
they will focus on improving it cited and the site furnishing. the meeting is from 5:30 until 7:30 at pier 1, and we already have a draft. his agent online at sfgport.com/bluegreenway, and will be taking, it's on that until july. you can leave your comments on line. we welcome the comments. it is an exciting project for us. the next item is the final environmental impact report for the brannon street wharf, at long last heard by the city planning commission this thursday, june 16, and we sincerely hope that will be certified. this is the final eir for the project, which has spent 11
years in conceptual design. it is finally moving forward. banks to the generosity of multiple sources, including the bond measure, the project is fully funded -- thanks to the generosity of multiple sources. that is really exciting news for us and we are looking for to that at long last. as i think you already know, this week, the oracle racing has debuted to of their ac-45 vessels for the running of the catamarans. the ac-72's which are twice as tall, will be running for the calendar series in july, 2013, as well as the final match of the america's cup. this week, from 1:00 until
3:30, june 13 through june 17, is the running of america's cup 45, and they're testing out the courses. i think they have some fine- tuning, after yesterday's capsizing, as well as race management technology, all under the purview of john, who is the course designer for the america's cup management group, formally doing the same job for the st. francis yacht club. they're doing places all over the bay. -- there are viewing places all over the bay. the most scenic would be from golden gate bridge to pier 39, or the 1850 replica of the america's cup yacht race. or the 2003 challenger usa 76. those vessels are also out there, and hopefully everybody will get to see them.
they're said to go about 30 knots, which is quite quick. very exciting. next is the development commission will be meeting on july 7. this is imported the port of san francisco is our joint application with the america's cup event authority with a commission to consider, the special area plan amendment to allow open activity in the water basin for the america's cup on the 34 -- for the america's cup 34. but it is at the water basin a little to the south of pier 32- 38. whose phone is ringing? that is where the key vessels will be brought during the match. the second place is the open water basin at the rincon park. the proposal is spectator yachts
would be berthed in that open water basin. it the special area plan limits mooring to non-commercial vessels. the items will be held at the commission meeting on july 7, in the port commission room, in this building. there will be a staff report available, june 24. at this time, staff is only recommending an allowance for the brannon street wharf open water basin and not the rincon point open water base. at some more to come on where the super yachts will be berthed. and finally, i'd like to propose the port commission adjourned its meeting today in honor of the fallen san francisco firefighters, lieutenant vincent perez and firefighter paramedic anthony valerio, two college to
we have lost 10 days -- two of our colleagues that we have lost. >> any comments on the executive director's report? ok. >> item 7 b., legislative updates. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is jonathan stern with the planet -- with the port planning and development division. given that our legislative liaison was detained, he asked me to give you a brief update about the legislative agenda of the port and city at the state legislature. there are two bills that have been going through the legislature and i will give you a brief update regarding them. there we go. there are two bills, both about
development projects. the first, ab-418, regards pier 7-0 and the trust status out at the pier, at the other bill is regarding the cruise terminal and the sites that will be in the america's cup. just as background, the port works with legislature, in conjunction with the city legislative committee. this is the group convened by the mayor's office, and generally puts together all of the specific needs that the city looks at, what is planning to move toward it at this time, and we are part of that process. ab-418 is really an
administrative trust bill. it is a trust exchange mechanism. at this map shows the report that port staff that did a number of years ago about the trust status of the area components of pier 70. many of the pieces of property were acquired with the original grant. many of them were acquired afterwards, specifically the shipyard, which support purchased for $1. each of these parcels, some of them were filled land, some of the more i planned. -- some of them are upland. they have specific stories that affects their legal status. when we are going through our
normal process, we have a couple options. we can sit down with staff and say this very specific property has this-and should be treated this way, and this is not in the trust, or because we are doing pier 70, we can try to all ligne trust status. this is the representation of three statuses we would like to see. the yellow are areas where the trust is lifted. almost 40 acres at pier 70 have other reasons we think the trust may not apply. the green areas would be in the trust. these are some of the internal streets. and then the historic buildings would either be in the trust, could be maintained by the port in or out of the trust.
but i mentioned before, this bill is primarily an administrative bill. it is delegating to the state lands commission, making these trust exchanges. ultimately, there will be a lot of staff work and tidal research to verify the status and get them from this map to the second. this is not really a matter that needs to be written into state law, the mechanism where the land commission can address these issues as they go by. this is particularly important as we move forward with the development initiatives we have, the waterfront site that we're negotiating before the city development, and for the 20th street building. these are mechanisms that will help us finish those processedes. there are sort of two issues that we are looking at, that
have to be resolved before this is finalized. they both have to essentially do with the trust money and historic buildings. the first is some of these lands seem to be non-trust land, but they're still held by the port, and the harbor fund is essentially a trust assets. so what happens with this money. at the land commission wants to make sure that we do not put general trust money, harbor fund money into non-trust properties. that is a nuance and the details we still have to work out. similarly, do historic buildings get held at the trust with use restrictions or are they held as non-trust assets that achieve the mission of the trust of historic preservation? again, there are some nuances that have to be worked out.
it has gone all the way through the assembly, including the committee. it has gone to the senate side. it has been deemed to be non- revenue. it does not have to go through the appropriations process. is scheduled to be heard on june 28, and our hope is it will be voted in a positive manner and go to the senate floor for adoption and go through the confirmation process. that is the trajectory right now. ab-664 is another ifb bill. as you have probably heard, we have gone to the legislature a number of time, last six years, to strengthen the infrastructure of the finance district capabilities. this particular bill has to do
with properties that are subject to the america's cup, and where the will be long-term improvements done by the event authority or short-term improvements, sites that might become better because they're touched by the america's cup. it is to create a district on these properties. we have gone to the state legislature to say that we've elected capture the ifb's districts. specifically, this is based on the misalignment of local investment and state-projected tax gains, based on the america's cup event in 2013. the report is expected to invest $55 million minimum of improvement for port properties. this will have the effect of having the port authority make those investments that offer long-term development rent
credit to that effect. essentially it will be local investment. the city is also signed up to cover $32 million of the cost raised by the america's cup organizing committee or local taxes. what has been rejected is the $61 million of state revenue from the state from income taxes, sales taxes, etcetera, from the economic activity in 2013. based on those conditions, we have asked through the mechanism similar to what we did at pier 70 last year, that the city and port would be able to capture more of the revenue, the tax increment revenue through this mechanism. currently, we only have the ability to capture sixty-five cents of every tax increment dollar. it is generated through new development. in this district, that would raise it from 65 to ninety cents of every dollar tax capture.
it has similar safeguards. the state has oversight. that would go through the state investment bank to be certain these are projects that are of statewide interest. anyway, this has also passed all the way through the assembly. it has deemed to be a revenue bill, as it should be. it is currently being heard at the senate rules committee schedule on july 6. after that, it will probably go into recess until august to go through the appropriation reviews process, and hopefully we get through that process this year. other bills ended up being two- year bills because of the additional scrutiny of the state
is having with the tight revenue bills. that is a possibility. but also, the america's cup, everybody wants to pitch in. it is getting some traction, and we hope this bill could be potentially a one-year bill. that concludes my update. >> when you say you would be capturing more, what does that translate into total amounts that the port would be of the capture out of this? >> it is about 40% more. our current projections from just the development at 3032 and pier 30-32, the probable production capacities is about $27 million.
that is an analysis we ran last november, december, and presented to the board of supervisors. if you add 40% to that, and is about $10 million, up $12 million on top of that. it is a significant wreck the new effect. -- it is a significant revenue effect. if additional development occurs on the other sites, the additional capital of the tax increments also. >> any further questions? and the public comment on the legislative update? ok, thank you. >> items on the consent calendar, 8 a., to execute an amendment with coast and harbor engineering, inc., to extend the contract term by an additional 12 months, to may 28, 2012, to
provide engineering design support services during construction of the mission bay shoreline protection work. 8 b., request adoption of certain supplements and errata to the 2010 port of san francisco building code. 8 c., request authorization to advertise a request for proposal soliciting professional engineering services to establish a building occupancy resumption program for critical port facilities. 8 d., request authorization to amend the professional services contract with an arm of the sciences associates for environmental review services for pier 27 james herman cruise terminal and northeast wharf plaza by increasing the amount of the contract from $851,000 to an amount not to exceed $2.7 million and expanding the scope of services to include in farming or reduce services and permit coordination for the 34th
america's cup. it8 e., request approval to shore request for proposals soliciting public relations and media services related to the port's special events and other revenue generating and strategic media activities. 8 f., authorization to enter into a letter of agreement between the bay area urban area security initiative and the port of san francisco for the distribution of fiscal year 2009 urban area security initiative regional grant funds. 8 g., request authorization to advertise a request for proposals to solicit consulting services to develop a waterborne all-hazard response plan for the san francisco bay region. commissioners, with regard to item 8 a and c. the date should be changed from a 24 to may 20,
and the resolution number should be changed. >> i had some questions. >> consent items, if there is discussion, it should be rejected-- >> ok, move them from the consent, there? >> yes. that uh, like to move some items of the consent calendar. 8 c., 8 e. more specifically, those two. >> with that, madam chair, i will move that consent calendar items 8 a., b., d., f., and g.
>> any public comment? >> all of those in favor? those resolutions are passed. >> item 8 c., request authorization to advertise a request for proposal soliciting professional and sharing services to establish a building occupancy resumption program for critical port facilities. >> sorry, as the new commissioner, i will ask some questions. it is more informational. i guess part of it is that this looked like it was developing agency plan in the event of some emergency facilities. in addition to what we're trying to do going forward, what are some of the existing currency plans in place in the event there is a relatively long time
line before this gets implemented? what is in place now? to protect? >> ok, we have a representative from the engineering division. right now, the building occupancy resumption plan only applies to the private sector. i think only one of our master tenants has officially signed up, and two major tenants are looking at it. the plan is the same as everyone else's, which is in the event of an event, earthquake or something else, that renders a facility closed, then we have to go one by one out to inspect each individual facility. we have sought federal funding to allow us to get an engineer to create a plan for us so we could quickly resume at some of our key piers. we will not be able to do all of those with this funding. maybe you want to elaborate?
>> good afternoon, commissioners. i am the senior civil engineer. at this moment, so far we only have two facilities that are part of this program. one is the ferry building, only the building apart, but not the substructure, and the second facility that we were able to bring into this program was general 7 abc station, which is on the sea wall side. what we have right now is we have provided all the port facilities into three categories. we call category one at a high priority facilities, which is pier 1.
>> need to articulate that is? >> department dealt particulate -- department of facility. we work with the emergency center to give them updates on what is happening at the ports. pier 1 is doc at the moment, and we have also designated pier 50 a critical facility. when something happens, port needs to help start helping with inspections and removing debris and other items as needed. so, we have limited qualified staff to do these inspections. " we will be doing first, if something happens, we will be inspecting all of the critical facilities first.
once we're done with the critical facilities, will be moving onto priority to facilities -- priority two facilities, which are in densely populated areas. priority three facilities, which are not as much high importance, not in densely populated areas. we have only maybe 10 qualified staff to do these inspections, and we have 3 koehler coatings. one means it is green, which is safe to occupy. the other means it has restrictions. red means the facility is not suitable for occupancy. so only people with certain qualifications and certifications are allowed to do
the stabbings. -- are allowed to do these taggings. ewe have 39 piers, but if you include all the substructures and buildings, we have close to 100 facilities. even inspecting the critical facilities, it will take days, because we have to send people out in the boats, to inspect the pilings underneath, and then let's take for example the ferry building. although we have the building component, we do not have the substructure component. >> the intent of my question -- i just wanted to understand the completion of the timeline of this if it is extend it. i was not sure reading the material with the existing plan was, and allow it to be sure was, and allow it to be sure there was a plan.